Have any New York charities accepted Trump or a Trump family member on their board since the 2019 settlement?

1. The legal outcome: restrictions, not an outright ban

The New York Attorney General’s lawsuit produced a settlement that dissolved the Donald J. Trump Foundation and imposed a specific regime of restrictions on future charitable service by Donald Trump and his adult children — including mandatory training for Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, a prohibition on self-dealing, and conditions that any charity they join must have a majority of independent directors and retain New York nonprofit counsel and auditors to monitor grants and expenses ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. What the settlement actually required and what it forbade

The settlement forced the Foundation’s remaining assets to be distributed to “reputable charities” approved by the Attorney General with “no connection to Mr. Trump or his family members,” and included 19 factual admissions by Trump about prior illegal activity at the Foundation; however, it did not categorically bar Trump or his children from ever serving as officers or directors of New York charities, instead setting governance and oversight preconditions if they do so ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

3. Fact-checking the viral narrative that the family was “disallowed”

Independent fact-checkers and contemporary reporting cautioned that social posts claiming the Trumps were entirely “disallowed” from running charities in New York exaggerated the ruling; analyses from PolitiFact and FactCheck.org concluded the settlement imposed conditional restrictions rather than an absolute prohibition, and Snopes reiterated that the court did not bar the Trump family from running New York charities but required governance safeguards and training ^{[4] [2] [5]}.

4. Where the reporting is definitive — and where it is silent

The Attorney General’s press releases and settlement documents clearly record the dissolution of the Foundation, the redistribution of roughly $1.8–$2 million to eight charities, the training requirement for the three eldest Trump children, and the governance regime for any future nonprofit role by family members ^{[1] [3]}. The sources provided do not, however, report any instance after the 2019 settlement in which a New York charity publicly announced accepting Donald Trump or any Trump family member onto its board; absent such reporting in the supplied materials, a definitive claim that no charity has done so cannot be proven from these sources alone, but no supporting evidence was offered in them either (p1_s1–^[4], ^[2], ^[1]0).

5. Alternate explanations and possible hidden incentives in coverage

The persistent public belief that the family was banned entirely appears driven by shorthand reading of the AG’s aggressive rhetoric and by viral social posts that conflated separate allegations (for example, relating to the Eric Trump Foundation) with the Trump Foundation dissolution; fact-checkers noted those conflations and the political salience of the case — an incentive both for opponents to amplify punitive language and for supporters to downplay wrongdoing ^{[2] [5]}. The Attorney General’s framing emphasized restitution and safeguards, which served the public accountability narrative, while social-media framings amplified a simpler but inaccurate “ban” storyline ^{[1] [4]}.

6. Bottom line and reporting limits

Based on the documents and fact-checking provided, the settlement imposed conditions that make future board service by Trump or his children more burdensome and monitored in New York, but it did not institute a categorical prohibition; and within the supplied reporting there is no documented case of a New York charity taking a Trump or Trump-family member onto its board after the 2019 settlement — a negative for which the available sources offer corroboration of absence rather than an incontrovertible proof of impossibility ^{[1] [3] [4] [2] [5]}.